I will state now what ought to have been obvious all along. No, i am not in possession of any putative evidence against Mr. Galloway which may in future be used against him--what an absurdity, in fact, what pure rot. That dog won't fight. I am in a position to point out that the evidence used by the permanent subcommittee for investigations of the Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Arrairs has been published--i've linked it in my own thread on this topic. Therefore, i consider it not unreasonable for me to state in a controversy about Mr. Galloway's alleged guilt that the evidence of The Daily Telegraph was stipulated as false by their own legal counsel; that the evidence originally offered by The Christian Science Monitor was characterized as false by that publication when it printed a retraction; and finally, that the permanent subcommittee has not disputed the claim made by Mr. Galloway that the evidence they had published in smearing his name was identical to the evidence refuted in court and retracted by the CSM--the evidence for that, incidentally, is to be found in the subcommittee's report.
Based on Tico's criterion, i would be unable to comment on the weather in casual conversation, as it may change within the next five minutes, and make me out to be a liar.
Now, wouldn't you think that the American MSM (also known as the left-leaning American media on these boards) would be broadcasting and re-broadcasting the Galloway 'interview' as it made Coleman and his team look like such blobs?
Might be time to re-assess that MSM = left-leaning equation. Or overdue.
JustWonders wrote:Lord E - are there two suits brought by Galloway, or is the one you just mentioned the one that Hitchens describes as a 'temporary' win (since it's being appealed)?
JW......As for a temporary win, as poor Mr Hitchens describes it......I am not aware that the Telegraph IS appealing the case they lost against Galloway.
There are no other cases to my knowledge. Maybe someone knows different?
Mr Hitchens was very upset at being called a Popinjay by Galloway....I wouldnt take him too seriously at this moment in time. The male ego is a tender thing.
Hitchens also claims that Galloway was at one time ousted from his party for calling jihad on British troops.
Think Galloway will sue, or is this a well-known fact?
Ticomaya wrote:parados wrote:Let me think about this...
One side accuses the other of profiting monetarily from oil for food
The accused says, "You have no evidence of me ever recieving money"
The accuser fails to present any such evidence.....
Which side should I believe in this exchange?
In my America it doesn't matter who is accused, they are innocent until proven guilty. The only fools are those that condemn without evidence.
Unless of course the accused is the US military, and the accusers are terrorists.
Last time I checked US military chaplains are not terrorists, but don't let that stop you from calling them such.
The Telegraph had and has no intention to appeal (that's at least, what their lawer[s) said and what is known to the court[s]).
---
JW
I'd really like to argue Labour's intern party politics with you.
Can we do so on a different thread, since it's not the topic here? (I'm sure, at least one other member of the Labour party would join :wink: )
JustWonders wrote:Hitchens also claims that Galloway was at one time ousted from his party for calling jihad on British troops.
Think Galloway will sue, or is this a well-known fact?
It is, indeed, a well known fact that any number of scurrilous accusations have been leveled at Mr. Galloway since he had the unmitigated--unmitigated, mind you--gaul to condemn Poodle Blair's rush to war.
Setanta wrote:JustWonders wrote:Hitchens also claims that Galloway was at one time ousted from his party for calling jihad on British troops.
Think Galloway will sue, or is this a well-known fact?
It is, indeed, a well known fact that any number of scurrilous accusations have been leveled at Mr. Galloway since he had the unmitigated--unmitigated, mind you--gaul to condemn Poodle Blair's rush to war.
So, it's nothing more than a scurrilous accusation? Thanks.
My understanding is Galloway called on British troops to refuse to fight in an illegal war. I can see how some would like to characterize that in other ways but I don't see any evidence of a call for a jihad other than such claims being made on freerepublic and other ultraconservative American sites.
details of the actual charges against Galloway are here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3205889.stm
but this was not a court of law, it was a Labour Party tribunal.
Well, since he's been described as 'sue-happy', surely he'll go after Hitchens for so blatantly making that claim in his published article, no?
From Hitchens' article:
Quote:George Galloway--having been rightly expelled by the British Labour party for calling for "jihad" against British troops, and having since then hailed the nihilism and sadism and sectarianism that goes by the lazy name of the Iraqi "insurgency" or, in his circles, "resistance"--ran for election in a new seat in East London and was successful in unseating the Labour incumbent. His party calls itself RESPECT, which stands for "Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unionism." (So that really ought to be RESPECTU, except that it would then sound less like an Aretha Franklin song and more like an organ of the Romanian state under Ceausescu.)
That last bolded bit cracked me up
That last one was indeed a corker. Whether or not he files suit against Hitchens (who you will note does not provide support for his contention) likely has more to do with his soliciter's opinion of the likelihood of a favorable ruling than whether or not Mr. Hitchens is being truthful.
JustWonders wrote:
Do you have a source for that?
No, and obviously I misinterpreted a report by
his lawyer's firm.
Sorry.
Actually, the Telegraph won permission to appeal against the ruling to pay the damages, plus £1.2m in costs.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Actually, the Telegraph won permission to appeal against the ruling to pay the damages, plus £1.2m in costs.
Walter, do you have a source for
that? I've read that the
DT was
not given permission to appeal.
I now see where the Beeb reports he was guilty of "inciting Arabs to fight British troops".
A real winner y'all have got yourselves here.
Carry on
Walter - thanks for looking. I guess Galloway doesn't have the money yet.
Thread title says it all.
The rest is nice entertainment.
Well, actually, Galloway's performance was entertaining as well.
And all of this still remains a smoke screen to hide the weakness of the Senate committees claims.
Setanta wrote:
Walter, do you have a source for that? I've read that the DT was not given permission to appeal.
Right, I did that, too and posted it therefore
Quote:Telegraph wins right to appeal in Galloway ruling
(Filed: 19/04/2005)
The Telegraph won permission yesterday to appeal against a High Court ruling in December that George Galloway, the former Labour MP, had been "seriously defamed" when the newspaper published documents about him that it found in Iraq two years ago today.
Ordering a full hearing of the appeal before three senior judges, Lord Justice Tuckey said that one of the newspaper's legal arguments had a "realistic prospect of success" and was therefore "worthy of consideration", although it did not follow that this would decide the outcome.
Telegraph to appeal against Galloway libel win
